Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishing
http://www.theguardian.com...
Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishinghttp://www.theguardian.com... |
Half an author ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 707 Joined: Dec 2013 Thanked 120 times What I Read
|
RE: Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishingThis post was last modified: 22 Mar 2016 02:42 PM by Campbell.
There's plenty of snark to be found here. She's got a point about selling literary fiction and poetry. I know no indie making a living as an indie poet. Then again I know nobody at all making a living as a poet. I think the best advice we can extrapolate is this:1. Put out the best product you can by whatever means you can. Be sure you're happy that you've got something worth selling before you try to sell it (though, I suppose, one could argue the greater embarrassment is in not finding out; a non-selling book is virtually invisible anyway). On the flip side how many people have stories that just didn't suit a publisher lying around that might make them some money if they self-published? [Sidebar - quality issues are a big deal on the trad side too... I wouldn't point them out normally, but she made a point of saying how amateurish covers can make you look bad so here I give you How Things Are On Thursday by Ros Barber. Compare that to the standard KUF authors adhere to! 2. Take the route that suits you, your book, and your market (and your wallet!). Think about what you're paying and what you're getting (75% of net+ is a payment and potentially a lopsided one!). 3. Writing for a living is hard work, and will probably involve promo on either side of the fence (perhaps more so as an indie). Side jobs are seldom optional. 4. There are markets (e.g. foreign rights etc) that are easier for the traditionally published.... assuming you don't mind cutting in a publisher and losing 15% to an agent. 5. Being a snarky so and so online to whichever group you're not in is a bad idea. The internet is forever. Play nice. 6. Keep your expectations reasonable.... AKA You can get away with paying an apparently intelligent highly-educated person the equivalent of just £2500 a year... as long as you pander to their ego. Did I mention I'm hiring, you beautiful brilliant person you? |
RE: Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishingThis post was last modified: 22 Mar 2016 04:04 PM by Daphne.
I did smile a little at the line which stated that self-publishing "isn't a route to financial security" from an author who admitted in a previous paragraph that traditional publishing had provided them with an income equivalent to £2500 a year for two years. I think we are all lucky to be able to choose between the traditional route, self-publishing, or a mix of the two. Whatever works for the individual writer is good. But claims about self-published authors spending 90% of their time marketing is sheer nonsense. You might find one or two who have a particular talent for self-promotion who go this route, but most writers prefer to write. As for the caricature of the pushy author who waves a copy of their book in someone's face on greeting - this is more a matter of temperament than a result of which way you choose to publish. Still, the writer of the article has at least succeeded in promoting a bit of discussion.
|
RE: Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishing |
RE: Yesterday's Guardian article on self-publishingThis post was last modified: 12 Apr 2016 05:54 PM by Cheri Grade.
I have only ever considered writing as a hobby and have no illusions of retiring on the proceeds, however I have seen the point made in the article about how marketing is nearly as (if not more) important than the writing itself. Invariably, the books that sell well are the ones where I have achieved the most exposure on relevant websites. These aren't necessarily the books I am most proud of from a writing standpoint. I do imagine that someone with a talent for marketing could become successful no matter how good they were at writing.
|